The Speed Limit That Changed Overnight, the 62,000 Drivers It Caught — and the Case That Collapsed in Court

• Broadcaster Iain Dale was clocked at 66mph on the A20 — a road where the limit had been cut from 70 to 40 almost overnight, with barely a sign to show for it.
• As many as 62,000 offences may have been recorded on the same stretch in just six weeks, according to one defence solicitor.
• But it wasn’t the signage that finally killed the case. It was what happened — twice — inside the courtroom.

On the evening of 29 January 2024, LBC broadcaster Iain Dale was driving out of London on the A20 towards the M25 — a road he’d used for years and knew, as he thought, inside out.

He was in lane two, doing 66mph on a dual carriageway he had every reason to believe was a 70.

It wasn’t. Months earlier, the limit on that stretch had been slashed to 40mph because of persistent flooding — and according to his defence, the only warning was a single small sign on the nearside, low enough to be hidden by a car in lane one and, with no street lighting, effectively invisible at night.

Dale had no idea he’d committed an offence until the paperwork arrived. Neither, it seems, did tens of thousands of others: when a different Driver from the same stretch reached Court, his solicitor estimated that as many as 62,000 offences may have been recorded there in just six weeks.

The Metropolitan Police’s response to Drivers who complained? The penalties would stand.

The Speed Limit That Appeared Overnight

The stretch in question runs eastbound through Sidcup, where the A20 heads out towards Kent. In autumn 2023, Transport for London cut the limit from 70mph to 40mph — a temporary measure, it said, because of flooding.

A 30mph drop on a fast dual carriageway is exactly the kind of change that demands unmissable signage. What Drivers actually got, Dale’s defence argued, fell far short: nothing in the central reservation, and signs that failed to meet the recommendations in the official traffic manual.

His counsel’s argument went further: where there is no street lighting and the signage is inadequate, a Driver is entitled to assume the national speed limit applies. In other words — on the road as actually signed, 66mph may not have been an offence at all.

That was the case the defence wanted to test. All they needed was for the prosecution’s key witness to turn up.

Two Hearings. No Witnesses.

The first hearing was listed at Willesden Magistrates’ Court in October 2024. PC Goodwin — the officer whose evidence on the signage the defence needed to cross-examine — didn’t appear. The case was adjourned, and the CPS was told in plain terms that she was required at the next hearing.

In January 2025, the case came back to Court. PC Goodwin didn’t appear again — this time, the CPS said, for “a personal reason” that couldn’t be disclosed. When the judge asked why the defence hadn’t been told about any of this earlier, no clear answer came.

A second officer, PC Coomber, was also absent — for the second time. The CPS first explained she was double-booked at another court. It then changed its story: she’d got the wrong day, having picked up the wrong file.

The judge, by Dale’s account, was becoming visibly irritated.

“What Evidence Are You Offering?” — “None, Judge.”

There was one last attempt to salvage things: PC Coomber would give her evidence by video link. The Court duly relocated to a room with the right equipment — where it emerged her laptop had crashed. She was said to be finding another one, though no video link had actually been sent to her.

The judge gave the prosecutor one minute to establish the connection.

He couldn’t. Dale’s counsel submitted that a fair trial was now impossible, and the judge turned to the CPS with the question that ended it all: what evidence are you offering?

“None, Judge.”

Case dismissed. Dale was told to stand, informed he was free to go, and awarded his costs — of which more in a moment.

A prosecution built on a speed limit few Drivers could see collapsed because, over two hearings spanning three months, the prosecution could not produce a single witness to defend it.

Winning in Court Can Still Cost You Thousands

Here’s the sting in the tail. Dale won — but under the current rules, a privately-funded defendant who is cleared can generally only recover costs at legal aid rates, a fraction of what specialist representation actually costs. As he put it himself, he was still left “well out of pocket”.

Read that again: he was prosecuted over a speed limit his defence said was inadequately signed, the prosecution witnesses failed to appear four times between them, the case was thrown out — and he still ends up paying for the privilege.

That’s the reality for any Motorist who wants to fight a winnable case: the law may be on your side, but the cost of proving it usually isn’t.

What This Means for You

Dale’s case is a perfect illustration of something we see constantly: a speeding allegation is not a conviction. Limits must be lawfully signed. Evidence must actually be produced. Witnesses must actually appear. When any of those fails, cases fall apart — but only for Drivers who challenge them.

The tens of thousands who were caught on the same stretch and quietly paid up never got to ask a single one of those questions.

That’s the gap DriveProtect™ exists to close. Members get direct access to a specialist Speeding Solicitor who reviews their case and advises them exactly what to respond — for a fraction of the normal cost of legal help, so fighting a bad allegation doesn’t mean gambling thousands you’ll never get back.

Got a NIP or points on your licence right now? See how DriveProtect Membership works — a specialist Speeding Solicitor in your corner from £25/month.